Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2018 (9) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (9) TMI 1453 - HC - CustomsSmuggling - Contraband item - Gold - who is the owner of Gold - the first respondent was not able to establish either before the Adjudicating Authority or before the Tribunal that he was lawfully entitled to possess the gold seized from him. Whether the Tribunal could have remanded the matter to the Commissioner with a direction to exercise discretion in a particular manner especially when it has been clearly established on facts that the gold was smuggled into the country, that the first respondent was the career of the gold and that he had no documents or explanation as to how he was entitled to be in possession of the gold? Held that:- There is no room for remanding the matter to the Commissioner for a fresh consideration, as the facts clearly show that no discretion can be exercised in favour of the first respondent - reliance placed in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (AIR) VERSUS P. SINNASAMY, THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [2016 (9) TMI 879 - MADRAS HIGH COURT], where it was held that the discretion ought not have been exercised in favour of a smuggler giving an option to redeem the goods and that the Tribunal ought not to have interfered with the order passed by the Competent Authority, who had denied the release of the goods. During the pendency of this appeal, the 80 gold bars were sold by the Department through the State Bank of India and that the amount has been credited to the account of the Government of India. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of Revenue.
|